Paul K J Han1, Katherine Joekes2, Glyn Elwyn3, Kathleen M Mazor4, Richard Thomson5, Philip Sedgwick2, Judith Ibison2, John B Wong6. 1. Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Maine Medical Center, Portland, USA; Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, USA. Electronic address: hanp@mmc.org. 2. Centre for Medical and Healthcare Education, St George's, University of London, London, UK. 3. Dartmouth Center for Health Care Delivery Science, Hanover, USA; Cochrane Institute for Primary Care & Public Health, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, UK. 4. Meyers Primary Care Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, USA. 5. Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. 6. Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop, pilot, and evaluate a curriculum for teaching clinical risk communication skills to medical students. METHODS: A new experience-based curriculum, "Risk Talk," was developed and piloted over a 1-year period among students at Tufts University School of Medicine. An experimental study of 2nd-year students exposed vs. unexposed to the curriculum was conducted to evaluate the curriculum's efficacy. Primary outcome measures were students' objective (observed) and subjective (self-reported) risk communication competence; the latter was assessed using an Observed Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) employing new measures. RESULTS: Twenty-eight 2nd-year students completed the curriculum, and exhibited significantly greater (p<.001) objective and subjective risk communication competence than a convenience sample of 24 unexposed students. New observational measures of objective competence in risk communication showed promising evidence of reliability and validity. The curriculum was resource-intensive. CONCLUSION: The new experience-based clinical risk communication curriculum was efficacious, although resource-intensive. More work is needed to develop the feasibility of curriculum delivery, and to improve the measurement of competence in clinical risk communication. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Risk communication is an important advanced communication skill, and the Risk Talk curriculum provides a model educational intervention and new assessment tools to guide future efforts to teach and evaluate this skill.
OBJECTIVE: To develop, pilot, and evaluate a curriculum for teaching clinical risk communication skills to medical students. METHODS: A new experience-based curriculum, "Risk Talk," was developed and piloted over a 1-year period among students at Tufts University School of Medicine. An experimental study of 2nd-year students exposed vs. unexposed to the curriculum was conducted to evaluate the curriculum's efficacy. Primary outcome measures were students' objective (observed) and subjective (self-reported) risk communication competence; the latter was assessed using an Observed Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) employing new measures. RESULTS: Twenty-eight 2nd-year students completed the curriculum, and exhibited significantly greater (p<.001) objective and subjective risk communication competence than a convenience sample of 24 unexposed students. New observational measures of objective competence in risk communication showed promising evidence of reliability and validity. The curriculum was resource-intensive. CONCLUSION: The new experience-based clinical risk communication curriculum was efficacious, although resource-intensive. More work is needed to develop the feasibility of curriculum delivery, and to improve the measurement of competence in clinical risk communication. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Risk communication is an important advanced communication skill, and the Risk Talk curriculum provides a model educational intervention and new assessment tools to guide future efforts to teach and evaluate this skill.
Authors: Mark Harrison; Paul K J Han; Borsika Rabin; Madelaine Bell; Hannah Kay; Luke Spooner; Stuart Peacock; Nick Bansback Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2018-12-12
Authors: Elizabeth M Schoenfeld; Sarah L Goff; Tala R Elia; Errel R Khordipour; Kye E Poronsky; Kelly A Nault; Peter K Lindenauer; Kathleen M Mazor Journal: Emerg Med J Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Ryan T Palmer; Marissa Fuqua Miller; Erin K Thayer; Sue E Estroff; Debra K Litzelman; Frances E Biagioli; Cayla R Teal; Ann Lambros; William J Hatt; Jason M Satterfield Journal: Acad Med Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Elizabeth M Schoenfeld; Sarah L Goff; Tala R Elia; Errel R Khordipour; Kye E Poronsky; Kelly A Nault; Peter K Lindenauer; Kathleen M Mazor Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2018-02
Authors: Maxime Dion; Ndeye Thiab Diouf; Hubert Robitaille; Stéphane Turcotte; Rhéda Adekpedjou; Michel Labrecque; Michel Cauchon; France Légaré Journal: JMIR Med Educ Date: 2016-12-19
Authors: Thomas B Silverman; Alejandro Vanegas; Awilda Marte; Jennie Mata; Margaret Sin; Juan Carlos Rodriguez Ramirez; Wei-Yann Tsai; Katherine D Crew; Rita Kukafka Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-08-13 Impact factor: 2.655